Theories Of Thomas Hobbes Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes saw the problem with most harsh forms of government due to him living through a period of political disintegration. According to Hobbes all forms of government, aside from ‘sovereign power’, are prone to civil war and that

The social contract theory comes to effect when individuals are keen on leaving the state of nature, which entails a time of chaos and lawlessness. Hobbes views this state of nature as states of war where there are individuals constantly seeking to destroy each other in the constant quest for power. Whilst Hobbes believes that life in this state of nature is “nasty, brutish, and short,” Locke holds a more optimistic view of the state of nature. In Locke’s view of the state of nature, all men are free “to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of

“The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.”- Thomas Hobbes. This quote represents how humans, in their natural state, fight for their own benefit. It addresses the philosophical debate of nature versus nurture, and in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, his views of this debate are expressed. The characters are stripped from civilization, forced to act for themselves, and place their needs above all. People are shaped by society, but when deprived of this structure they are forced to adapt, and as Golding argues, peoples learned behavior is quickly overcome when placed in a difficult environment

He first explains how nature made men equal, though each might differ in physical strength, weaker men have stronger mentalities. If two men want a similar object that cannot be shared, then they become enemies. Some do it for fear, but others battle for pleasure. Hobbes establishes three principles for fighting: competition, diffidence, and for glory. Competition is essential for men to gain what they desire. By using violence, man create a superiority over family and animals. Diffidence is for safety of the desire, defending their family or animals. Lastly, glory is for maintaining a reputation of their own opinion, things, and superiority over others. When men are against each other without leadership then they are in war, and if they are not fighting then they are in peace.

In the present assignment, an attempt has been made to evaluate the influence of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the modern society. At the same time, the connection between the writings of these philosophers and the things that are actually present has also been explored. Both the philosophers were very enlightened thinkers of the 17th century. At the same time, both of them have very strong views regarding human nature and also the role that displayed by the government in the lives of the people. In this regard, Hobbes believed that by their nature, people were selfish but the perspective of Locke was different. He believed that the human beings are good by nature and reasonable and therefore they can self-regulate themselves. However, as a result of these differences, these two philosophers have different outlooks regarding what should be an ideal government. But despite these differences, both of

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan discusses and analyzes the natural state of man and the concerns of societal structure along with the proper implementation of a legitimate government, which is regarded as one of the earliest examples of the social contract theory. Focusing primarily on the second half reading, Hobbes begins chapter eleven by claiming there is neither an utmost aim nor a greater good and that man, left to man’s own devices, or in his natural state, seeks power after power and this continual desire for power only ceases in death (Hobbes 61). Hobbes continues by stating that when men live with no common power, that is no strong central government, they are in a constant state of war. Man’s life without the state

For Hobbes, the state of nature is a constant state of war by which all humans are equally capable of harming one another (Hobbes 185). Thus, humans require, “the mutual transferring of rights”, a contract with a sovereign authority to provide security and to protect humans from harming one another (Hobbes 192). Furthermore, Rousseau contends that, “all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants” (Rousseau 53) and man will reach a point within the state of nature where, “obstacles to their preservation prove greater than the strength of each man” (Rousseau 59). Hobbes and Rousseau share similarities in the premise of their arguments by acknowledging the fundamental source of human motivation, the flaws of living within the state of nature, and the necessity of contract or a social pact between men and a sovereign

According to Rousseau, the best form of government is a direct democracy (Robison), but since Ralph fails to establish this form of government, the result is the boys falling into corruption and total chaos. Rousseau believes that civil society causes humans to become corrupt. His philosophy is centered upon the idea of “the general will,” which reflects society’s interest in a common good (Younkins). But individual desires can conflict with the general will, and civil society can actually damage the desire for a common good (Bertram). The general will in Lord of the Flies is the need to build shelters, establish a civilization, and most importantly keep the fire going with the ultimate purpose of rescue. However, the boys stop caring about these goals and Ralph is not able to unite them.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust. There is only constant fear of violence and death, and hence the life of man will be solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short as Hobbes mentions.

Edmund Burke, after a visit to France in 1773, wrote a pamphlet titled Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) to express his disdain for the events and methods of the French Revolution. Where other political writers of the Enlightenment and Anti-Enlightenment Eras propose theories of politics and government, Burke does not promote a theory, a set of premises, a call to action, or even a succinct conclusion. He rather details his disposition of contractual government and politic science. He believes that the human condition, the traditions, experiences, and knowledge acquired by humans, is far to complex to be described by science and therefore avoids he commonly held views of political science from the Enlightenment Era. However, Thomas Hobbes, as he writes in Leviathan (1651) believed that all political phenomenons could be reported systematically as he equated all humans to machines, predictable by consistently acting in their self interest. [PG 3] Burke’s criticism that can be applied to Hobbes lies on three fronts; that the understanding human condition cannot be derived through logic; that consent, explicit or tacit, does not exist after the first social contract; and that a rebellion is neither possible nor effective when in a social contract.

Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract each attempt to explain the rise of and prescribe the proper management of human society. At the foundation of both philosophies is the principle that humans are asocial by nature, a precept each philosopher interprets and approaches in a different way. Hobbes states that nature made humans relatively “equal,” and that “every man is enemy to every man.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he says, and “every man has right to everything.” Rousseau outlines primitive asocial man having “everything necessary for him to live in the state of nature” from “instinct alone,” and being “neither good nor evil.” In contrast to Hobbes, who argues social bonds form to regulate human nature, Rousseau argues that the formation of the civil state results from and in a “change in man,” that humans must of necessity be denatured in the process of forming society. There are similarities between the two’s philosophies, but it is Rousseau, through his arguments that human nature can be changed, who articulates a political vision more consistent with the claim that humans are asocial by nature.

Hobbes’ interpretation of the state of nature forms a clear dystopian image of pre-society. He argues that in the state of nature all men are equal in the sense that each can pose a real threat to each other. For

Hobbes’ Ideas challenges its own arguments about peace and the State of Human Nature. In the pre-Hobbesian version of society, nature and the city were corrupted poor versions of the Garden of Eden. Since there laws or governing power didn’t exist yet, there is no morality or sin because humans act according to the only laws that exists naturally, which are self-preservation and the need to or desire to seek peace.

Hobbes also believed that human passion leads to a state of war within society, Dr. Frankenstein was very passionate about creating a life but with that passion he also caused chaos, violence and destruction. When he created the

Hobbes holds that “it is impossible to subjugate a man without first having placed him in the position of being unable to do without another.” Thus, the lack of organizational interdependence in primitive society prevents inequality. Similarly, the lawlessness of early society makes conflict impossible: war “can exist neither in the state of nature, where there is no stable property.” Thus, both philosophers consider equality the natural human orientation, but establish equality on radically different terms: Hobbes’s is chaotic and Rousseau’s harmonious. These assumptions inform their considerations of inequality (or lack thereof) within a legitimate